The reasons on the basis of which negative remarks had been written in appellant’s CR were sought - Respondent: If appellant had a grievance against the negative remarks in his CR, he should raise it at the appropriate forum - CIC: Order upheld
1. The appellant, Shri Sujit Kumar Behera, submitted two RTI applications dated 14 February 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Life Insurance Corporation of India, Parlakhemundi; seeking information regarding adverse comments made by Shri Pitabasa Sahu, Branch Manager on his Special CR from 1.4.2011 to 31.12.2011, & on his DOPA from 1.4.2011 to 2.2.2012, through a total of 8 points and 6 points respectively.
2. Vide reply dated 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. March 2013, CPIO denied the information on the ground that the information sought did not fall within the purview of information as defined u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, 2005 except on point no. 2 of the later RTI application on which he had informed that they had called for from Paralakhemundi BO and it would be supplied upon the receipt of the same from the BO. Not satisfied by the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 12 April 2013 CIC/DS/A/2013/002592/MP to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that he had been wrongly denied the information sought by the CPIO concerned. Vide order dated 10 May 2013, FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant submitted that he had sought information regarding the negative remarks written on his CR by his senior authority. He also alleged that there were roughly 1012 negative remarks written intentionally on his CR due to which he had lost 3 years of promotion. He also alleged that his CR had been destroyed as a punishment for raising the wrongdoings in the company. He wanted to know the reasons on the basis of which those negative remarks had been written in his CR.
5. The respondents submitted that Confidential Report (CR) was written by reporting authority and no information as sought by the appellant was available with them. They had only remarks but not the reasons as to why those remarks had been made. They also submitted that if appellant had a grievance against the negative remarks in his Confidential Report, he should raise it at the appropriate forum. RTI was not the appropriate forum for the redressal of his grievance. They also added that the appellant had also got the promotion.
6. The Commission accepts the submissions made by the respondents that the information as held by them had already been provided to the appellant. The Commission upholds the decision of the CPIO. The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Shri Sujit Kumar Behera v. Life Insurance Corporation of India in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/002592/MP